Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1290 (AP)

Dommati Kishan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2012-12-27

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not awarding the additional market value @ 12%, as illegal and arbitrary. The lands of the petitioners were acquired as they came under submergence under Sripadasagar Project. An award was passed by respondent No.3 on 28-8-2010. As the petitioners were denied the additional market value @ 12%, they have represented to respondent No.3 to modify the award by granting the same. While declining the said request, respondent No.3 has issued Memo in Rc.No.A/21/2008, dated 25-5-2012, wherein he has directed the petitioners to receive the compensation amounts and seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). Respondent No.3 has also threatened the petitioners that if they fail to receive the compensation amounts, the claims will be referred under Section 30 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this action of respondent No.3, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 wherein he has not denied the plea of the petitioners that the additional market value @ 12% has not been awarded to the latter. One of the heads under which compensation is payable to the owner of the property whose property is acquired, is the additional market value @ 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. This statutory right cannot be denied to the owner of the land. The only objection raised by respondent No.3, both in the impugned Memo and also in the counter-affidavit, is regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. According to respondent No.3, the petitioners can only seek reference under Section 18 of the Act if they are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded. I am afraid, I cannot accept this unwholesome stand of respondent No.3. Being the Land Acquisition Officer, it is imperative for him to follow the statutory provisions in stricto sensu. He cannot ignore the specific statutory provision and make the award in derogation thereof and drive the aggrieved parties to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. In K. Peda Venkataiah Vs. Being the Land Acquisition Officer, it is imperative for him to follow the statutory provisions in stricto sensu. He cannot ignore the specific statutory provision and make the award in derogation thereof and drive the aggrieved parties to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. In K. Peda Venkataiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ( 2004 (1) ALD 1 (D.B.), a Division Bench of this Court set-aside the award in a writ proceeding on the ground that the market value was not assessed as on the date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, as mandated under Section 23(1) thereof. When an award is made contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act, the same needs to be declared as a nullity. The aggrieved party cannot be non-suited on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Far from rectifying his defect, respondent No.3 has even gone to the extent of threatening the petitioners with deposit of the compensation amounts in the Civil Court if the latter do not receive the same. This conduct on the part of respondent No.3 is abhorrent. In the light of the above discussion, respondent No.3 is directed to pass a supplementary award by awarding additional market value @ 12% as envisaged under the Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. For passing the award in utter disregard of the mandatory statutory provision, respondent No.3 is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/-, payable to the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, WPMP No.25903/2012 is disposed of as infructuous.